Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

CelticWhisper writes "Targeted at stopping SOPA, a petition has been started at the White House's 'We The People' page calling for a Constitutional amendment that would render internet access an inalienable right. Other countries have already adopted such classification for internet access. An excerpt from petition text reads: 'The United States Government is actively attempting to pass legislation to censor Internet. There are numerous campaigns against this Act, but we need to do more than just prevent SOPA from passing. Otherwise, future Acts of similar nature will oppress our rights.' Is calling for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee this too extreme, or is the Internet sufficiently entrenched in modern life that access to it should be guaranteed by the Constitution?"

it's called Free Speech. That's not to say that the Government won't try to take it away, as they have with other rights, but there it is. The Internet isn't a thing which can be (properly) regulated, it's just a bunch of people/organizations voluntarily communicating.

Intent is an important aspect of law. The Constitution guarantees the right to "peaceably assemble", and the peaceable part includes both intent and action. So if a bunch of people all click on a link because they're interested in it (eg it got posted to slashdot) then even if the server crashes, no crime has been committed. If a bunch of people decide to maliciously take down a website by convincing a large group of people to hit refresh all day on their browser, then their intentions are not peaceful, and their actions would not be protected by the first amendment even if it was decided that the freedom of assembly applied to visiting a webpage. Much like freedom of assembly does not protect a group of people blocking the doorway to a grocery store.

Freedom of speech does not necessarily extend to the methods used for speech. Freedom of speech does not give you an inalienable right to stand in public area speaking my mind into a 200dB sound system. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to call every number in the phone book at 2am. Hell, there's already significant precedent giving the government the right to revoke a citizens right to use a telephone. I'm not saying that the right to internet access shouldn't be be granted, but it is 100% not covered under existing precedent and interpretation of the first amendment.

Those examples you gave were abuse of those rights, but they still don't necessitate limiting the rights of everyone else because of a few bad actors. Just because 10% of people on the internet are trading warez or pirated movies and music doesn't give them the right to infringe upon my rights to freely travel the internet.

If we allow the government (or any private company, not just the government) the right to censor what web sites we can access, the internet is doomed in the U.S.. Just because the sites they want to censor right now are allegedly IP violators (and the alleged part of this can't be ignored; as it stands there is no recourse whatsoever to prevent erroneous reports from killing perfectly legit, legally-operated web sites), that doesn't mean they won't turn their sites on something else later. First it's child pornographers. Then it's IP thieves. Then it's bomb making instructions, fringe websites like Westboro Baptist Church and "Terrorist Groups". Then it's the Occupy organizing websites because of the conflicts with different police forces all over the country. Then it's sites promoting the overthrow of our government. After all, these actions are all "for the public good", right?

Our access to the internet today is just as much a necessary facet of the public's right to revolution as the Second Amendment and Freedom of Speech and Assembly was in our Forefather's time. We've grown beyond the days when someone can ring the town bell and have all the men come rushing to town with their Brown Bess'. The internet is our town bell, so to speak.

Giving the government the ability to limit our access to the internet is no different than allowing the government to rescind the 2nd Amendment and start collecting our guns. Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, evinced this mindset when he wrote the words:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Without unfettered access to the internet, the government is in effect limiting this human right. We have the right to gather and demonstrate and, yes, even throw off our government if we feel that we are not being properly represented. If any of our sitting reps actually respect our founding fathers and the foundations of our country, they will vote against this ridiculous SOPA shit.

Whether or not freedom of speech covers the internet is up to the courts to decide, not congress. And since they've already determined that writing is a form of speech I don't see how writing "on the internet" would be any different.

The word "internet" does not appear even once in the US Constitution.... As such Congress is perfectly able legislate restrictions on internet use

Ahem... wrong!

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If it's not in the Constitution, Congress cannot make any laws about it. AFAIK, that's why abortion is legal in the USA, because it's not mentioned in the Constitution.

The problem is that as long as it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution you'll find people like Thomas and Scalia that pretend that it doesn't exist. Despite quite a few references to privacy in the bill of rights, there's plenty of folks that like to claim that there is no right to privacy. Well, if that's the case then why did they amend the constitution so that people would be secure in their persons, paper, houses and effects against unreasonable search and seizure?

...there's plenty of folks that like to claim that there is no right to privacy.

They are wrong. At least in the US, it is supposed to be that...the constitution does NOT grant you rights. You have the rights born to you inately....and keep them all unless limited by law. That law should come primarily from your state/local laws.

But the constitution nor the govt GRANTS any rights to the individual...it does, however grant a FEW enumerated rights/responsibilities to the Federal govt.

They are wrong. At least in the US, it is supposed to be that...the constitution does NOT grant you rights. You have the rights born to you inately....and keep them all unless limited by law. That law should come primarily from your state/local laws.

The natural right/positive right debate has been going hard and heavy for three hundred years now, and while the founders had a diversity of opinions on the issue, they had the good sense to keep ideology out of the constitution. The first amendment is a proscription on the power of congress to make certain kinds of laws, nothing more or less. You can believe that you have a natural right or the right is granted, neither interpretation conflicts with the text of the constitution and both theories had adherents among the writers. Getting them to all agree on one theoretical interpretation or the other would have guaranteed the language of the amendment would never have passed.

Either way as pertains to privacy, it's most parsimonious to say US constitution does neither "recognize" nor "respect" a simple, holistic right to privacy. That the fourth amendment manages to spell out what it means without using the word "privacy" should be instructive, they probably left it out for a reason.

it does, however grant a FEW enumerated rights/responsibilities to the Federal govt.

You can ask Hamilton, Washington and Adams about how they felt about the interpretation and limitations of enumerated powers.

The problem is that as long as it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution you'll find people like Thomas and Scalia that pretend that it doesn't exist.

Their real problem is that their theory of constitutional interpretation is based on idea that their understanding what James Madison "meant" when he wrote something down in 1782 is superior and more valid than how a modern, reasonable person interprets the plain language in the time they're actually living in. Scalia has been very specific about the fact that he "doesn't understand" modern culture enough to apply 18th-century constitutional rights to modern situations in the manner of a "living document" constitutionalist, but he's quite certain he understands the culture of the late Georgian period enough to come to all kinds of precise conclusions about things like eminent domain in Kelo or corporate personhood.

"Strict construction" is about embedding the terms and significations of the constitution in an historical-revisionist mythology and hermeneutic, with the objective of re-defining the law in minarchist terms (and guess who makes all the money when that happens).

While fine in intent, restricting freedom of speech to exclude hate speech only leads to restricting other types of speech. That's how we get into this whole mess of political correctness. If left unchecked, anything different/new could be considered harmful to people [society] and banned/restricted. Books, newspapers, etc. Some people would even go as far to say that we need to make Fox News illegal because it disagrees with their world view.

It's not nice to spout obscenities, but I don't think it's the place of the government to monitor/regulate speech. We need to learn how to tune these people out.

You're an idiot. You represent the faction of limpdick idiots who say "the constitution protects us"... and none of you understand why the US constitution was an important document.

Clue: it wasn't because of the freedoms it grants - all of those freedoms existed in laws in other countries (example: England) - but they were written down in Latin or French and buried in vaults where only legal scholars with the right education could read them. People didn't know that the state wasn't allowed to do that.

The US constitution was important because it put YOUR RIGHTS in simple English on a sheet of paper. You know your rights and therefore you can exercise them and you know when people try to take them away... AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

No, the US constitution was important because it put THE GOVERNMENTS rights in simple English on a sheet of paper. It's supposed to list what the government can do, not what the people can do; I say supposed to because the monstrosity of government we have now is so out of scope of the original purpose of government that it's beyond defining. The Bill of Rights (which is what you're really talking about) was an afterthought introduced by Madison because it was feared that the Constitution wasn't explicit enough, i.e., people would allow the government to grow beyond its purpose and trample certain rights were key to the revolution in the first place.

The Constitution doesn't give you freedom. It gives the government freedom. Freedom isn't given to you by your government - it's something your government is supposed to protect!

You're an idiot.... The US constitution was important because it put YOUR RIGHTS in simple English on a sheet of paper.

Nope. The constitution doesn't say much directly about your rights. It says what the government can and can not do. An example would be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While it does indicate the people have a right, the purpose is to limit what the government can do. AFAIK it is impossible for a citizen or business to violate the constitution - that's why bars can have "ladies night" and not be charges with discrimination. Your right to discriminate is not spelled out in the constitution, only the governments requirement NOT to discriminate.

IMHO the internet should not be mentioned explicitly. At most, the first amendment might be extended to include electronic communications. Plain and simple language is important, and specifics should be avoided. In fact, speech and things should not be taken as literal "speaking", but communication - in that case, the internet is already covered.

IMHO the internet should not be mentioned explicitly. At most, the first amendment might be extended to include electronic communications. Plain and simple language is important, and specifics should be avoided.

Yes, and one of the specifics to be avoided is the term "electronic". This would, for instance, tell the lawyers (and the Supreme Court) that optical fiber isn't covered, since it used photons rather than electrons.

More generally, we should probably tackle the growing problem that, whenever a computer gets involved in any activity, all legal precedent is discarded, and all legal rights must be re-established from scratch. Thus, we see all sorts of limitations of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, etc., because we're doing those activities online rather than in the "real world", and the online world exists primarily inside computers (and their comm links). So people don't see the communications as "speech" or publishing or assembling together, or whatever; they see the communications as electronic and computerized. The US Constitution doesn't mention computers (or electronics or photonics or tachyonics or whatever follows), so the people in power don't think that the US Constitution applies.

What we need is an Amendment that specifically states that our "free" activities can't be limited by the government regardless of the equipment that we use to carry them out. We need to find a way to prevent them from cancelling all the freedoms whenever a new technology comes along that improves our ability to carry out the protected activities. And we need a phrasing that covers new technologies in such a way that the more authoritarian members of the Supreme Court will understand that the freedoms still apply.

(And I refuse to call them "conservatives". An actual conservative would want to preserve our historic freedoms, regardless of whatever newfangled gadgetry we're using to exercise them. These people are "authoritarians", because they support those in positions of authority who want to limit our rights whenever they can think up a new excuse to do so.)

The US constitution was important because it put YOUR RIGHTS in simple English on a sheet of paper. You know your rights and therefore you can exercise them and you know when people try to take them away... AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Actually, the Constitution was meant to enumerate the rights of the federal and state governments. It also specifically excludes some known abuses of government, such as ex post facto laws. It's the amendments to it that specifically enumerated the rights of the people. Fou

There is no need to organize against this law. The day it gets signed (if ever) it will get overturned on first amendment grounds.

oh, how cute. somehow who still believes the system works for us little folk.

look, mate, the governments are totally and all inclusively in fear about the freedom equalization that the net brings to citizens. not one of them likes it. its against the control-concept of governments (every single one of them, by nature) to allow your ruled subjects to have this kind of power.

"but its wrong!"

yeah a lot of things are not just in this world. deal with it. you and I are the 99% and its how its always been and will always be.

and when they want to take this and that from us, THEY DO AS THEY PLEASE. with little fight from us, usually.

and they know it.

we should at least realize it, too.

and stop looking to the system to help you. the system IS the problem, don't you see that?

Even if the courts ultimately found SOPA unconstitutional, it wouldn't happen the "day it gets signed". It would take years for a case to get to the Supreme Court level. And in the meantime, there would be quite a chilling effect on speech on the Internet.

And there's always a chance that the powers that be would rely more on intimidation and bluffing rather than risk getting the law overturned. For example, it's remember all those technically illegal t-shirts and other things that have the DeCSS code printed on them? Since they were never prosecuted, the DMCA never got challenged. But there's still a chilling effect on Linux distributors (not to mention DVD player makers) to not distribute that code, just in fear of prosecution, and the costs that would entail.

Certainly what these petitions are trying to get is a state where everyone gets Internet access gratis.

Oh, bullshit. This isn't about free internet, this is about open access to it. Neither our government nor private business has the right to tell us where we are allowed to go on the internet. Just because right now this is about IP violators doesn't mean it will stay that way, eventually it will be used as justification to shut it down for reasons of social unrest under the reasoning of "the public good".

I pay for a web connection. What I do with it is my business. If I am infringing upon the rights of others in my actions, than by all means, prosecute me for my actions, that's the way the law works. What you can't do, though, is use the fact that I used my internet connection to break the law as an excuse to block everyone else.

This shit is all based on the premise of guilty before proven innocent. It is totally against the spirit of our legal system in it's entirety.

Actually, this is freedom of the press more than freedom of speech. "Press" is tech enhanced speech, which has been clearly different from speech since the 1700s when the 1st Amendment was created and agreed. Press freedom clearly includes the right of the people to read what's "printed" by the press; otherwise the freedom of the "printers" is meaningless.

A Constitutional amendment might still be necessary, though. Just as the 4th Amendment clear definition of the right to privacy as "secure in their person

So what happens if the government recognizes "unfiltered Internet access" as an inalienable right?

imamac's point was that recognizing it as a right doesn't get you anywhere. It is like saying food security or access to medical care is an inalienable right: Somebody has to pay to provide it, and it requires the transfer of goods or services from one person to another. That makes it different from the things that we traditionally recognize as inalienable rights.

Nor do they have the authority to tell you who you can "speak to" on the internet, i.e., who you can connect to. Yet here we are, arguing over a bill that would basically give them that right, because they're working at the behest of Big Media who sees that their standard "artificial scarcity" model is flawed in an era of worldwide, open communication.

They're pissed off because the government said, "Fine, if all of these people are stealing your shit, you catch them and present us with compelling evidence

Mod up. I served in the military during a time of war. I was stationed on an aircraft carrier. I was never shot at. Am I damn proud of my service? You betcha. Am I a hero, definatley not. I have no idea how I would react to getting shot at. Would I have the courage to run forward to help a wounded man? I would like to *think* that I would...

The internet is made up of other people's networks. One uses the internet through access provided, for profit, by other people. Making internet access an inalienable right would mean giving one group of people, those without internet access, a right to the property of other people, ISP owners. Also, it would require that people who have no means of access the internet (i.e. someone without a computer), the means to do so. Libraries, etc. are not acceptable because then the libraries would have to be open 24/7, otherwise the person "inalienable" right is being alienated for part of the day. Then, there is the small problem of content filtering. Libraries would be unable to prevent people from looking at hard core porn.

That's not how it works. Free Speech is a right, but only idiots claim that means one can take over a private conference hall to make ones self heard. The right only means, as the Constitution states, that Congress shall make no law abridging this right. Similarly, an amendment to make Internet access an inalienable right would simply prevent Congress from taking it away. It would not mean that private enterprise or individuals would be forced to provide access.

actually, it's exactly what it means : "a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred". So he is correct. His version would mean that you can have access to the internet if you so choose, but that right cannot be taken away by the government at their leisure. It does not mean that private companies have to give it to you for free (see 2nd amendment, when was the last time you were given a free gun?)

The Second Amendment is not a right to a gun or a right to own a gun. It prevents one's right to bear an arm being infringed. The Second Amendment doesn't give the right, but rather assumes the right exists and denies the government the right to remove it.

exactly, which is what those of us who understand the difference, want implemented with the internet. To deny the government the ability to deny or otherwise limit our ability to access the internet. With that being said, you could argue that the 2nd amendment is limited by the government dictating what types of firearms you are allowed to possess.

The first amendment includes freedom of the press, which obviously includes peoples access to the press. I've never heard of it meaning you get free newspapers, just that the government can't stop you from acquiring a newspaper of your choice. This would just be the same for the internet.

actually, it's exactly what it means : "a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred". So he is correct. His version would mean that you can have access to the internet if you so choose, but that right cannot be taken away by the government at their leisure.

An inalienable right cannot be removed, and it cannot be granted either. Like you just said, according to "natural law" -- that means the right exists in the universe regardless of your ability to recogniz

An inalienable right can not be denied, at all, period. Free speech is not an inalienable right. And, the First Amendment does not grant a right to free speech nor make such a right inalienable. It states that the "Congress shall make no law"... It prevents the government from making a law, it does not grant the right. It assumes the right exists and prevents the FEDERAL government from interfering

The internet is made up of other people's networks. One uses the internet through access provided, for profit, by other people. Making internet access an inalienable right would mean giving one group of people, those without internet access, a right to the property of other people, ISP owners...

Sorry, your reductionist approach in trying to make this a "property rights trump all" issue fails. Do you realize that ISPs run wire and fiber over other people's property left and right, due to easements granted by law without paying a penny? Those people are forced to accommodate the property of a private business, denying them unlimited use of that portion of their property. The ISPs are given special legal privileges in exchange for providing a service to the public, as well as the opportunity to make money.

The government takes the easements for the benefit of the community at large. No easement, not power lines, no phone lines, no sewer lines, not water lines, The use of the easements comes with government mandated actions and oversight.

Which is why I wish my local government would grow a pair and actually place mandates on them and do a bit more of the oversight thing. If only they were actually regulated like the power or water company.

The intent is irrelevant when the wording involves an inalienable right to something. Just look at the laws involving rights passed in the last 50 years. How many have been rights from something, like those making up the Bill of Rights, and how many have been rights to something, like the ADA?

I cannot disagree with you. As I said, the proposal is vague, but the last sentence of the proposal states "By signing this petition, you are demanding the Obama Administration to add an amendment to the Constitution that limits the power of the Government from being able to censor the Internet". This indicates that the intent is to limit the power of the government. Many here are focusing on the word "inalienable", which would probably not be used in any eventual amendment, and arguing that this means that

We're not talking about you having a right to own my suburban house without a valid sales contract or whatver. We're talking about you having the right to access my house, without the local PD arresting you enroute because they don't like black people in my lilly white city and DWB (driving while black) is a local municipal offense.

The internet isn't someone else's property, the ISP's infrastructure is. Since most people need that infrastructure to access the internet, then you need cut the ISP out of the picture. You could provide a state owned ISP (scary) that's open to everyone, or we could do something more exotic like mesh networks.

But you also need hardware to access the Internet through the ISP. I definitely don't think that the it should be imperative on the State to provide individuals hardware so they can connect to the Internet... other than the computers down at the local library.

There's plenty wrong with this petition (Obama isn't the king of America, and can't amend the constitution himself), but TFA actually wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from censoring the internet.

The problem is, there's so many loopholes in THAT...

Also, there is a way that internet access could be prevented from being shut off, without going towards a state ISP - it could be handled like Obamacare, where insurance companies are forced to insure everyone, instead of dropping those w

That's great until said private interests and your own interests are in opposition, then you're left with no recourse whatsoever. If we had private roads, and the private company that owned the roads decided you weren't allowed to use them anymore because you were talking crap about them online, or pissed off the wrong person in management, or one of the countless reasons a private company and their lawyers could come up to the justify it, what do you do when you need to use those roads to go to work?

Privatizing everything is just as dangerous to the common man. I know that a lot of people are on this "Government BAD!!! Privatization GOOD!!!!" kick right now, but it bears mentioning that our own government for decades was able to manage and improve our infrastructure just fine. It's not the government that has failed, it is the people in government lately that have failed. Say what you want about all the problems this country had in the past, and how our "golden years" weren't necessarily all sunshine and roses, but there were still a fair number of people in government that came out of World War II with a sense of civic duty. The fact that they've all been forced out by opportunists doesn't mean that government has failed, it means that we need to put better people in government.

Like all this nonsense with Social Security, they take money from it for years and years and then, when they've finally taken enough to put the fund into real danger of not being able to meet it's obligations, now it's being trotted out as an example of why government can't do anything right. Bullshit. S.S. was working just fine until those self-serving assholes started robbing it and playing games with money that didn't belong to them.

Like all this nonsense with Social Security, they take money from it for years and years and then, when they've finally taken enough to put the fund into real danger of not being able to meet it's obligations, now it's being trotted out as an example of why government can't do anything right. Bullshit. S.S. was working just fine until those self-serving assholes started robbing it and playing games with money that didn't belong to them.

You know... those self-serving assholes you speak of? They're the gover

You can't separate the politicians from the government, no matter how much you'd like to. If you don't trust politicians, then you sure should not be trusting any government program in the long term.

This is the fundamental difference, as I see it, in your thinking and my own; I believe that there are plenty of good men out there that would not fuck over their fellow man if given the chance, they're just never given the chance because they're not as easily corruptible, whereas you feel that the government itself corrupts any man so that no matter how good he is, he will fuck over his fellow man.

Assuming that I am correct in that assessment, I have to disagree. I have worked along side and interacted plenty of people that still have the good moral character and civic virtue to, in my opinion, execute those offices fairly and responsibly. Cincinnatus was a real person, remember. [wikipedia.org] The problem is they will never, ever get the chance. Why? Because everyone must pass the gatekeepers before they can even attempt to run for office, i.e., the GOP and the DNC.

They are the reason why our government is so broken, not government itself. They have secured their stranglehold on the political process in this country, little by little, over the last hundred or so years, and in doing so, have totally twisted our government to act in their own interests. It's not government in itself that did this, but men, corrupted men, that ignored their civic responsibility to their constituency and instead served their own interests. At no other time have the same two political parties held onto their power in our government as they have today. There is almost no chance whatsoever for anyone to have the resources to run for office in this country without going to one of those two parties with their hat in hand, asking for their support. Said support comes with a price, promises are exacted, and the corruption continues.

If we were able to force simple changes on our government it would clean itself up pretty quickly. Term limits, for one. Disallowing any sitting rep to run for more than two terms would end the political dynasties and cliques. Campaign Finance Reform is another one, a huge one. Disallowing people to give money directly to a candidate, and instead forming and mandating a general election fund that is distributed equally to qualifying candidates, would pretty much end the stranglehold of those two parties in one fell swoop. It would give truly independent politicians a real chance in competing with the guys sponsored by Team Donkey and Team Elephant. Corporate contributions (and control of our government) would end quickly, because they would no longer be able to give their money to the guy they want directly...in making a donation to the guy they support, they would be giving money to his opponent, too.

Then, of course, would be the disallowing of people to move between the public and private sector with impunity, particularly the regulators that jump ship and go immediately work in the industries they previously regulated. Anyone with a brain can see how allowing them to switch sides like that is going to cause problems. The FEC and other financial regulatory bodies are all full of ex-Wall Street Bankers...and those Wall Street firms are all full of ex-Regulators. They trade players back and forth every year. They have luncheons together and conferences to, no shit, discuss how they regulate the financial industry. Imagine if our police met with drug dealers and pimps to discuss how they would enforce laws on drugs and prostitution and took their advice. There would be blood in the streets.

So was it their office that corrupted them? Does their existence in itself necessitate corruption? It didn't for decades, our regulatory bodies worked just fine, for the most part. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but to make the leap from "[organization] is screwed up, we must dump it completely and let the market do what it will" is irresponsible and, honestly, a little ridiculous.

You have some points I agree with, but I have to ask: If you set term limits on government work and prevent someone from leaving a financial position in government to work in the financial sector with something they know and have worked with, where will they work? (eg. Let's say I know the ins and outs of computer programming and am assigned to regulate some fictitious regulatory board on computer programming standards. When I leave the regulatory job, would I be forced to work in a grocery store so I d

You'd be forced to work in a position that is not under the umbrella of regulation you previously had a part in crafting and enforcing.

As an example, the Backscatter Radiation/Full Body Scanners in airports that everybody loves so much. Back in like 2007 and 2008, higher up's in the TSA set down regulations for their use, contracted out for their manufacture, training on how to use them, etc. All the things that would be necessary with a new technology. Seems fine, right, I mean, that's their job.

Then, once the regulations were completely in place and these machines were contractually getting bought by the government for $250,000 a piece, (not to mention the dozens of billable training hours multiplied across what, 60,000 employees in the TSA?), then a whole slew of these higher-ups all resigned their posts in the public sector and immediately started working for the private contractors that supplied and maintained them. People from both the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security did this.

See the huge conflict of interest there? They obviously signed those contracts knowing full well that they would be the ones collecting the checks in a few short months. They make the regulations that will benefit these private companies, then go work for these private companies. That's just the obvious cases, there are tons of people in government that are good friends with these government contractors, too. Dick Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton for 5 years before he got elected vice-president in 2000, then 2 years later the war in Iraq and, holy shit, Haliburton was getting blank checks from the government for security over there

If a person wants to hold elected office, they're going to have to take concessions. If you are a policy maker in a regulatory agency or the government, there is no way you should be allowed to immediately transfer to the industry you previously regulated. It is far too easy for people to set up their own sweetheart deals and then immediately jump ship and capitalize on them.

There is no reason why people working in regulatory roles shouldn't have to make sacrifices. In private industry it happens all the time, there are non-compete clauses for a reason. Why is it such a stretch to expect the same thing in public/private career changes?

Mmm, I think most of us agree that there's a shift in the way the worth and value of intellectual property is measured. In the information economy, the value of a piece of work nowadays is not how much a copyright holder can manage to charge for it by withholding access to it, but instead by what cultural mindshare the work can amass from the population.

You don't make an amendment saying, "The people have an inalienable right to access the internet."You make an amendment that says, "Congress shall make no laws denying the people access to the internet."

Regulate Congress, not the industry.

(It's still a dumb idea when we don't have an inalienable right to oh, say water or power...)

The "inalienable right to health care" also is an "inalienable right to someone else's property", so there is ample precedent.

(Note that I think that basic health care should actually be provided to everybody, but that's cheap. The "right to health care" in US and European politics means universal access to expensive, state-of-the-art first world treatments, which is something entirely different.)

That's true, but we're not talking about property here, we're talking about ACCESS to property, public property I might add.

What these guys are trying to do is limit our access to the internet. This is no different than your phone company only allowing you to call people that they approve. You still have to pay for your phone connection, but the phone company has no right whatsoever to tell you who you are allowed to call until you infringe upon that person's rights (i.e., harassing them). You can call whoever you want with a telephone, period.

This is really no different than the concept of the internet. The ISPs can charge us for service, but they can't tell us who we can "talk" to online. We can talk to whoever we want because we're free citizens. Just TALKING to a bunch of people on, say, a forum for breaking the encryption on a new disc-based format (09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, for instance? [wikipedia.org]) is not grounds to cut me off. I have every right to talk about that subject, this is a free country; up until the point that my actions actually break the law they are protected by it. End of story.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand this point? We're not trying to make the internet a right as in "they have to give it to you for free". We're trying to make internet access a right, as in you can go wherever you want on the internet without your ISP, either for their own reasons or on someone's behalf, playing content police predetermining what you have a right to access, who you have a right to talk to, etc.

The "right" is an extention of the rights described in the 1st amendment. These are inallienable rights. You are born with them. You are born with the inallienable right to peacably assemble and the freedom of speech.

This petition is just asking for the 1st amendment to be copied and appended with "On the Internet" like so many of those crappy patents from the 90's.

Just take the 1st amendment, and any place you see a coma or semicolon, inject "on the inter

When a corporate interest uses and benefits from public funding and resources it waives the right to exercise full ownership over the product. If they don't want the government to step in like that, then perhaps they shouldn't use the public right of way or make use of tax payer dollars and protection from competition to do it.

It is already a right. The government does not GRANT rights, they can only take them away. "Quality of life".. Seriously?? Where did you read that? Contrary to popular belief, the government is charged with promoting the common good. Not providing it.

Show me a Canadian version of it and I'll sign! Imagine a world in which people would be banned from having access to a telephone. Seems pretty insane, right? Well, the internet is now in the same realm as phone access - it is a vital means of communication. Banning access to it is unacceptable. Sign it.

No more rights!!! This is a dangerous precedent!!! We already have the right to internet access, don't you people understand???? We have the right to EVERYTHING that is not illegal. The only power the govt has is to REMOVE certain rights (which i agree with). If we run down this road of "We, the GOVERNMENT" did not "grant" the right to internet access, the whole thing falls down. Things like this scare the shit out of me. Every single law that is passed has one thing in common, it limits your rights (which, again, is a good thing, felons with guns, etc..).

Consider what would be like if someone attempted to pass a law that says people should not talk with loud voices in public spaces. Or, people should not talk in groups bigger than 2. that would basically totally neutralize your right to free speech as you used it through your own, inalienable voice. it would basically alienate your right to speak, with your inalienable throat. this would totally end free speech back in ages where there wasnt technology like newspapers, tv, internet.

Or, consider a law that banned anyone from printing and publishing anything without consent from king's council. that would basically end free speech circa 1774. no pamphlet, or newspaper would be published that king didnt allow. notice, how pamphlets, newspapers had had taken over your sole, single throat as the medium free speech was conducted back at that time.

Fast forward to today. This isnt no different. internet is the medium that free speech is conducted - but actually more - its the best avenue for free speech. you restrict it, and you restrict free speech. It has taken over throat, newspapers/print medium and tv as the vehicle of free speech. Notice that i skipped the radio and tv era. that is because there has never been free speech in that era, due to the license/financial requirements they had.

internet is now our throats. cutting people off from internet, is like cutting their throats so there wont be free speech.

In the case of the road:
Your right to the road versus someone else's right to be compensated for their labor (transport of stolen goods)
Your right to the road versus some child's right to security... free from being crushed under your SUV.
Your right to the road versus other peoples right to the road(rush hour)

Does that mean the staff of your ISP has to be hauled into The Hague and charged with Crimes Against Humanity, for denying you of your "human rights"?

If they carefully and systemically removed access solely to certain minorities while providing better service exclusively to members of the 1%, then yeah, sounds good to me.

There are no non-monopoly ISPs in my area, thats they price they pay for the government enforcing a monopoly. If they wanted a free market, they should have paid the govt for one instead of paying the govt for a legally enforced non-free market.

So maybe the solution is to break the monopoly rather than passing more regulations to fix existing unfair regulations. Or, when these new regulations don't work, we could just do the same thing over again and pass more regulations hoping it'll work this time. And when that still doesn't work, we can always pass more.

Is your nearest major newspaper required to publish all of your comments because of your right to free speech? Does a game developer get dragged into court for using a profanity filter to censor things you write?

Private corporations are under no requirement to facilitate your rights using their own property, though they do have a requirement to not abridge your rights without you having first waived them. So long as other ISPs exist in your area and there's no external factor keeping you from jumping to oth

This is not "the right to use the internet". This would make it an "inalienable right", meaning that if one does not have the means to access the internet, the government would have to provide the means. Also, it would mean places like libraries couldn't prevent someone from looking at hard core porn or downloading viruses. In fact, it might even mean places like Kinko's would be prevented from charging for internet access.

That is because the right isn't to a free press, free speech, and to bear arms. It is a right to Congress not passing a law preventing or abridging those rights. That is why Amendment 1 begins "Congress shall make no law", and why Amendment 2 ends "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights to certain things. It is a list of rights to be free of certain things and laws. The law proposed would be a right to something, not a right to be fr

Correct, but the point of this is preventing Congress from ever taking them away. Something I wouldn't have thought we needed 10 years ago, but as the years go by they sure seem awfully excited to limit or prevent access.

By signing this petition, you are demanding the Obama Administration to add an amendment to the Constitution that limits the power of the Government from being able to censor the Internet.

Even if someone somehow got the impression that the Obama administration did not fully support the pro-copyright laws mentioned in the petition, the president cannot simply "add an amendment" to the constitution. The process by which amendments are added to the constitution is specified in Article V. Here it is so you don't have to bother looking it up:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Note that the president has no official role in the process.

Secondly: sorry folks, Obama is not your guy in this one, even if he could amend the constitution. Frankly, I'd very surprised to see anti-corporate-copyright opinion taken seriously by any presidential administration in my lifetime. You don't get to be in that position by making an enemy of Big Media.

I've often wondered about this. What would happen if a president(ial candidate) won the election by having their campaign financed by Big Media and then, upon taking office, worked their ass off passing a bunch of pro-consumer, pro-private-citizen laws that effectively knife the Big Media sponsors in the back? Would they win a 2nd term if the people were happy enough? Would Congress act to override vetos on bend-consumers-over-the-barrel legislation? To put on my tinfoil conspiracy hat for a minute, wou

By making something like internet access an inalienable right, the government would be required to ensure every single person in the United States has not only access to an internet connection, but also a means of connection. The government would be required to buy people computers or smart phones. And, if a person lost, broke, or sold his computer, the government would be required to give him a new one because without a computer, he would not have inalienable right to internet access.

Oh Pooh. The right to free speech doesn't make others pay for the pamphlets you print. The right of free speech also doesn't give you the right to solicit prostitutes or send out offers for illegal drugs in the mail. The right to bear arms doesn't give you the right to shoot people.

This is how internet access should be approached.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the access of any person to the internet.

"""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."""

And if it's "they ignore that" then why do they think some new amendment wouldn't be ignored in exactly the same way?

This will mostly result in the supreme court ruling that "The Internet" is actually defined as

1) pdf.irs.gov (or pubs.irs.gov or whatever), army.mil, basically all federal level marketing websites.2) maybe some mechanism to allow state and local government websites3) some mechanism to allow "related" and "quisling" sites like the federal-reserve.com, and quisling sites like republican.com, democrat.com. Categorically exclude libertarian.com, etc.4) Possibly religious websites, if they need the votes of the

The petition states that its goal is to prevent the US government from censoring the Internet. That has nothing to do with the idea of making the Internet an unalienable right.

If you declare Internet access to be an unalienable right, you are inviting government intervention to provide everyone with an Internet connection. This is not great. If you want a preview of the consequences, just visit any inner-city emergency room and ask them how EMTALA is working out for them.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The right to assemble applies to cyberspace, not just meatspace. Furthermore, the right to freedom of press is meaningless without the right to assemble to give the person your leaflet. Even though the document is over 200 years old, already it made first-class acknowledgement of technology: the printing press, a major technological leap from the fifteenth century. The Constitution is technology-aware. The Internet is the new press, and to prevent publication on it or to prevent receiving publications from it is unconsitutional.

Of course, this is meaningless with a Constitution that is not just routinely ignored, but at this point completely dead. Although the Constitution has been dying for the past century, the watershed moment for me came last month when a U.S. judge nullified the War Powers Act [wsj.com] and put the capacity for declaration of war completely in the Executive Branch. Worse than the actual court decision, is that no one noticed or cared.

Of course, this is meaningless with a Constitution that is not just routinely ignored, but at this point completely dead. Although the Constitution has been dying for the past century, the watershed moment for me came last month when a U.S. judge nullified the War Powers Act [wsj.com] and put the capacity for declaration of war completely in the Executive Branch. Worse than the actual court decision, is that no one noticed or cared.

Except, per your reference, the judge did none of that. He simply stated the lawmakers bringing suit had no standing to do so; they did it as private citizens. The case was not a test of Constitutional powers (which would go to the supremes) but yet another simple case of individuals using the courts to further their agenda.

While the question of what rights does the President have to send troops, in his role of CiC and as a furtherance of his diplomatic powers, and what powers does Congress have to limit such actions is interesting; this was not a test case for that.

We do not have "[t]he right to assemble...to freedom of press..." etc.

We have a right from "law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". There is a big difference.

We have rights from the government making laws prohibiting certain things because the Constitution assumes that rights are inherent to the people and the government puts in place laws to limit those rights as needed by civil society. The rights FROM certain laws exist to protect what

A Constitutional amendment might be necessary. Just as the 4th Amendment clear definition of the right to privacy as "secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" doesn't force the government to protect our privacy instead of invading it, the 1st Amendment doesn't force the government to protect our speech and press freedoms. (In fact it has never protected our religious freedoms, since it's been turned on its head making Congress respect establishments of religion in tax exemptions while requiring them to operate their establishments in ways exempted from free speech and press exemptions.) The Constitution that creates the only powers our government legitimately holds needs amendments clarifying our rights in modern language that lawyers don't find so easy to pervert.

One amendment would simply state that Congress shall protect the right to freedom of religion, making no law that includes distinctions on the basis of religion, and protects the rights to freedom of the press and of speech by making no law that infringes on them without due process. Another amendment would simply state that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects is the right to privacy. Might as well go the next step in stating that the right to keep and bear arms necessary to supplying a militia that defends a free state is protected from infringement by law. All these clarifications make the Constitution direct the government to actually protect our freedoms, rather than allow weasel words (and weasel lawyers) to get the government to abuse our freedoms.

We need another amendment that states that a person is only any individual human who can understand these rights. That eliminates the corporate "person", and even the related fetal "person" that some people have used get the government to increasingly deprive real people our rights. In fact, if we passed that amendment first, the others might not be necessary.

On the one hand we have a society that is making it increasingly difficult for people to function normally (buy things, pay bills, find government information, etc.) without access to the Internet. On the other we have corporations that 1.) are trying to criminalize whatever we do on the Internet as much as they can in order to increase their profit margins, and 2.) have way too much money and influence on our governments, meaning that they will attempt endlessly to push their agendas until they succeed. A Constitutional amendment would be a good way to put a stop to their attempts once and for all.

Okay, so what about the really bad guys out their, distributing spam, viruses, kiddy-porn -- wouldn't they then also have an inalienable right to Internet access? Well, yes, but those people can also be fined and/or incarcerated.